Supporting Information

Sustainability: A New Imperative in Contaminated Land Remediation

Deyi Hou 1*, Abir Al-Tabbaa 1 1 Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK* Correspondence to: Email: deyi.hou@gmail.com; +44(0)7774-955-082

Additional Information on Sustainable Remediation Practices

The sustainable remediation initiatives taken by governments and the industry in Europe

have led to observable changes in the field. Among others, the sustainable land

management movement in the Europe have encouraged technological innovation. In the

Netherland, remediation practitioners have for the first time combined groundwater energy

(i.e. heat cold storage) with contaminated groundwater cleanup (1). In the UK, practitioners

employed innovative power system to allow for the simultaneous recovery and usage of site

contaminants - coal tar. It was demonstrated that such a system could save project cost by

20~30% and leads to substantial GHG reduction (2). In some other cases it was proposed to

use brownfields to produce biomass, which can be used as feedstock for biofuels (3), and it

was suggested that traditional agricultural practice such as annual liming and application of

animal manure may have mitigated soil-plant transfer of heavy metals, raising a potential for

sustainable management of such contaminated site (4). Moreover, many new initiatives are

implemented to promote sustainable remediation, e.g. a new European project, Holistic

Management of Brownfield Regeneration (HOMBRE), examine life cycle land use and

promote intermediary land use; and another new project, Advancing Sustainable In Situ

Remediation for Contaminated Land and Groundwater (ADVOCATE), is promoting in-situ

remediation technologies.

The green remediation movement in the US has largely focuses on reducing remediation

actions’ environmental footprint (5). The USEPA’s definition of green remediation solely

refers to environmental effects and benefits, without referring to social and economic

aspects (6). This is likely due to the concern that specific inclusion of certain economic and

social considerations may exceed the authority of current USEPA regulatory programs (5).

USEPA’s core elements in green remediation includes: air, water, energy, land &

ecosystems, and materials and waste. Among others, green remediation practices in the US

have focused on energy efficient equipment and sustainable energy systems such as solar

panel, landfill gas converted power system, windmill, and geothermal system; low energy

intensive bioremediation systems, such as enhanced in-situ bioremediation,

phytoremediation, and engineered wetlands; and sustainable construction techniques, such

as recycling of demolition waste, capture and reuse of rainwater, and low maintenance

landscape.

A Meta-Analysis of Studies on Secondary Impact of Remediation

In traditional remediation decision making processes, many of these impacts are externalized. To account for the secondary adverse effects of remediation operation, a life cycle approach has to be used (7). Many studies have attempted to compare the life cycle impact of various remediation technologies (8, 9). However, such studies have rendered a wide variety of results. As shown on Figure S1, the remediation impact factor varies significantly among different remediation technologies. For instance, incineration impact factor was nearly four orders of magnitude higher than that of capping. Even with the same remediation technology, the impact factor can vary significantly from site to site. For instance, the impact factor of ex-situ bioremediation varies by three orders of magnitude and the impact factor of pump and treat varies by two orders of magnitude in different studies. The variety may be due to variation in contaminants type, level, and distribution, as well as many other site-specific hydrogeological conditions. This lack of consistency demands site-specific sustainability evaluation, including remediation life cycle assessment, to select the most sustainable remediation alternative. But more generic remediation life cycle assessment studies can shed light on this issue and potentially provide a more economic tool for remediation practitioners.

Figure S1 Global warming potential of soil and groundwater remediation technologies (CAP=capping; D&H=dig & haul; ESB= Ex-situ Bioremediation; INC=Incineration; ISB= In-

situ Bioremediation; ISCO=in-situ chemical oxidation; ISS=in-situ solidification/stabilisation; ISTD=in-situ thermal desorption; MNA=monitored natural attenuation; PRB=permeable reactive barrier; P&T=pump & treat; SW=Soil Washing)

Study Site Location Contaminants Soil Remediation Technologies

Groundwater Remediation Technologies(1)

Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria and Notes

Busset, 2012 (10)

France PCB ESB; INC N/A Used in Figure 1.c and 1.d

Mak, 2011 (11) US Cr and As N/A PRB Used in Figure 1.c and 1.dLemming, 2010 (12)

Copenhagen, Denmark

TCE N/A ISB; ISTD; D&H

Used in Figure 1.c and 1.d

Fiorenza, 2009 (13)

New Jersey, US Petroleum Hydrocarbon

N/A P&T, MNA, ISCO

Contaminated aquifer volume unknown; only used in Figure 1.d

Harbottle, 2008 (14)

Four sites in England, UK

Petroleum Hydrocarbon, Heavy Metals, Cyanide

ISS; SW; ESB; CAP; D&H

N/A Used in Figure 1.a and 1.b

Payet, 2008 (15) Ronde Venen, Netherlands

Heavy Metals D&H; Phytoremediation

N/A Contaminant mass quantity not available; only used in Figure 1.a; phytoremediation has negative CO2 emission, not shown on figure due to log scale plot.

Garon, 2008 (16) New Jersey, US Misc D&H; ISS; ISB N/A Contaminant mass quantity not available; only used in Figure 1.a

Harbottle, 2007 (17)

England, UK Petroleum Hycrocarbon and BTEX

D&H; ISS N/A Used in Figure 1.a and 1.b; for 1.b, it is assumed that average contaminant concentration was 20% of maximum concentration.

Cadotte, 2007 (18)

Quebec, Canada

Petroleum Hydrocarbon

MNA; ISB; ESB N/A Used in Figure 1.a and 1.b

Bayer, 2006 (19) Karlscruhe, Germany

Acenaphthene P&T; PRB Used in Figure 1.c and 1.d

Toffoletto, 2005 (20)

Quebec, Canada

Petroleum Hydrocarbon

ESB N/A Only one treatment technology; used in Figure 1.a and 1.b

Note: (1) For the purpose of this study, the treatment of saturated soil is considered a groundwater remediation technology. (2) CAP=capping; D&H=dig & haul; ESB= Ex-situ Bioremediation; INC=Incineration; ISB= In-situ Bioremediation; ISCO=in-situ chemical

oxidation; ISS=in-situ solidification/stabilisation; ISTD=in-situ thermal desorption; MNA=monitored natural attenuation; PRB=permeable reactive barrier; P&T=pump & treat; SW=Soil Washing.

Table S1 Reviewed Studies and Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria for Secondary Adverse Effect Shown on Figure 1

Pressures from Other Major Working Parties

The other major working parties at a site may include the primary contractor and key

technology vendors. Remediation contractor is a key actor in remediation practices. While

they have little influence in decision making regarding remediation design, they are a

determining force in remediation operations. There are great opportunities for contractors to

adopt sustainability practices in their operation; and the can also exert influence in decision

making associated with these operation practices.

Specialized technology vendors are not easy to replace; therefore they are capable of

directly influencing decision making in remediation processes. In addition, in remediation

technology selection decision-making process, stakeholders still tend not to trust innovative

technologies (21). This places a barrier in technology diffusion. The incorporation of

sustainable remediation principles can encourage innovative technology development and

deployment. There is a growing trend of tagging “sustainability” with innovative remediation

technologies (22). Some examples discussed in the previous section demonstrated how the

“sustainable remediation” movement has helped in conquest regulatory barrier and creating

innovative solutions. This new institutional context provides challenges as well as

opportunities to technology developers.

Pressures from Secondary Stakeholders

The secondary stakeholders are those who don’t directly make decisions in the remediation

processes or are minor working parties that can be easily replaced. For the stakeholders

without resource interdependence with focal firms (e.g. site neighbours, local communities,

and environmental interest groups), according to stakeholder theories, they tend to use

indirect strategies to influence focal firms through those stakeholders who holds critical

resources (e.g. regulators) and those who have resource interdependence with focal firms

(e.g. major working parties). Studies have found that community and environmental interest

groups can exert pressures on focal firms and effectively change organizational behaviour

(23). In remediation, such pressures have forced contaminated land owners to initiate clean-

up actions especially in many high-profile cases. Community acceptance is also one of nine

balance factors under CERLCA for selecting appropriate remedies (24). Nevertheless, there

is a lack of study on how pressures from communities and environmental interest groups

may have affected the adoption of sustainability principles in contaminated land remediation.

For the stakeholders that are resource dependent on the focal firms, but hold no critical

resources of the focal firms, they would have little influence on decision making according to

traditional stakeholder theories. However, we hypothesize that due to the complexity of

remediation decision making processes, some secondary stakeholders can influence how

remediation is conducted through their own niche institutional fields. For instance, a waste

management contractor may seemingly hold no critical resources of the focal firms as they

can usually be replaced easily; however, their expertise in waste management and familiarity

with regulations put them in a unique position to affect decision making regarding how the

waste is contained, transported, and disposed.

References:

(1) Slenders, H. L. A.; Dols, P.; Verburg, R.; De Vries, A. J. Sustainable remediation panel: Sustainable synergies for the subsurface: Combining groundwater energy with remediation. Remediation Journal 2010, 20, 143–153.

(2) McLaren, S.; Worboys, M.; Speake, O.; Mantell, P. Ex-situ Thermally Enhanced Coal Tar Recovery - A Low Carbon Option. In Green Remediation Conference; Copenhagen, Denmark, 2009.

(3) SNOWMAN The Rejuvenate Decision-Making Approach-A Worked Example-Crop Based Systems for Sustainable Risk Based Land Management for Economically Marginal Degraded Land; Sustainable Management of Soil and Groundwater (SNOWMAN), 2009.

(4) Madejón, P.; Barba-Brioso, C.; Lepp, N. W.; Fernández-Caliani, J. C. Traditional agricultural practices enable sustainable remediation of highly polluted soils in Southern Spain for cultivation of food crops. Journal of environmental management 2011.

(5) ITRC Green and Sustainable Remediation: State of the Science and Practice; Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council: Washington, DC, 2011.

(6) USEPA Green Remediation: Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites. EPA 542-R-08-002.; United States Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 2008.

(7) Favara, P. J.; Krieger, T. M.; Boughton, B.; Fisher, A. S.; Bhargava, M. Guidance for performing footprint analyses and life-cycle assessments for the remediation industry. Remediation Journal 2011, 21, 39–79.

(8) Lemming, G.; Hauschild, M. Z.; Bjerg, P. L. Life cycle assessment of soil and groundwater remediation technologies: literature review. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2010, 15, 115–127.

(9) Morais, S. A.; Delerue-Matos, C. A perspective on LCA application in site remediation services: critical review of challenges. Journal of hazardous materials 2010, 175, 12–22.

(10) Busset, G.; Sangely, M.; Montrejaud-Vignoles, M.; Thannberger, L.; Sablayrolles, C. Life cycle assessment of polychlorinated biphenyl contaminated soil remediation processes. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2012, 17, 325–336.

(11) Mak, M. S. H.; Lo, I. M. C. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Permeable Reactive Barriers: Effects of Construction Methods, Reactive Materials and Groundwater Constituents. Environmental Science & Technology 2011, 45, 10148–10154.

(12) Lemming, G.; Hauschild, M. Z.; Chambon, J.; Binning, P. J.; Bulle, C.; Margni, M.; Bjerg, P. L. Environmental impacts of remediation of a trichloroethene-contaminated site: Life cycle assessment of remediation alternatives. Environmental Science and Technology 2010, 44, 9163–9169.

(13) Fiorenza, S. Applications of Sustainability Principles and Metrics at Industrial Sites Undergoing Remediation. In Global Perspectives in Green Remediation California EPA, Sacramento, California; 2009.

(14) Harbottle, M. J.; Al-Tabbaa, A.; Evans, C. W. Sustainability of land remediation: Part I: overall analysis. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Geotechnical Engineering 2008, 161, 75–92.

(15) Payet, J.; Gambazzi, F. Assessing LCA and ERA for Sustainable Site Management in a Single Framework; 2008.

(16) Garon, K. P. Sustainability Analysis for Improving Remedial Action Decisions. In 2008 State Superfund Managers Symposium; Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Offices: Scottsdale, AZ, 2008.

(17) Harbottle, M. J.; Al-Tabbaa, A.; Evans, C. W. A comparison of the technical sustainability of in situ stabilisation/solidification with disposal to landfill. Journal of hazardous materials 2007, 141, 430–440.

(18) Cadotte, M.; Deschênes, L.; Samson, R. Selection of a remediation scenario for a diesel-contaminated site using LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2007, 12, 239–251.

(19) Bayer, P.; Finkel, M. Life cycle assessment of active and passive groundwater remediation technologies. Journal of contaminant hydrology 2006, 83, 171–199.

(20) Toffoletto, L.; Deschênes, L.; Samson, R. LCA of Ex-Situ Bioremediation of Diesel-Contaminated Soil (11 pp). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2005, 10, 406–416.

(21) EURODEMO. Status Report on Decision Making Processes and Criteria; European Co-ordination Action for Demonstration of Effiient Soil and Groundwater Remediation, 2005.

(22) Lubrecht, M. D. Horizontal Directional Drilling: A Green and Sustainable Technology for Site Remediation. Environmental Science & Technology 2012, 46, 2484–2489.

(23) Baron, D. P. Private politics. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 2003, 12, 31–66.

(24) USEPA Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA (Interim Final), EPA/540/G-89/004; United States Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 1988.